I read another article talking about how trading Jake Long for Mike Wallace makes a lot of sense for both teams.

While we love Jake Long and what he brings, Mike Wallace would add big play ability and TDs.

Jake Long is great for our Run blocking but we can't run the ball as much as we did and expect to win every week. That's what Sparano did.

Jake Long would help out the Steelers horrible OL. This allows us to not pay Jake Long a big contract. This will allow us to Use the money on a playmaker we need.

Mike Wallace would give us he speedster playmaker and allow the steelers to use that money on a needed position. The steelers are deep at WR right now.

Really the trade makes sense for both teams.

I want to agree with you now. But it feels like that ship has sailed. Who would play LT for us this season. This is the kind of trade that should be made in the offseason.

Hey Doc, would you rather have Wallace or Fitzgerald? The reason I ask is if Jake is a top 3 LT in the game, and Fitz is a top 3 WR in the game, wouldn't that be more comparable? I mean Fitz has elite talent, with poor qb play getting him the ball. I see that as more of a deal that would benefit the fins.

And just for the record, I still don't think I would do the deal, but it would intrigue we way more._________________- "Who, I love Rich Camarillo." Quote from the Fish's play by play crew.

I read another article talking about how trading Jake Long for Mike Wallace makes a lot of sense for both teams.

While we love Jake Long and what he brings, Mike Wallace would add big play ability and TDs.

Jake Long is great for our Run blocking but we can't run the ball as much as we did and expect to win every week. That's what Sparano did.

Jake Long would help out the Steelers horrible OL. This allows us to not pay Jake Long a big contract. This will allow us to Use the money on a playmaker we need.

Mike Wallace would give us he speedster playmaker and allow the steelers to use that money on a needed position. The steelers are deep at WR right now.

Really the trade makes sense for both teams.

I want to agree with you now. But it feels like that ship has sailed. Who would play LT for us this season. This is the kind of trade that should be made in the offseason.

Hey Doc, would you rather have Wallace or Fitzgerald? The reason I ask is if Jake is a top 3 LT in the game, and Fitz is a top 3 WR in the game, wouldn't that be more comparable? I mean Fitz has elite talent, with poor qb play getting him the ball. I see that as more of a deal that would benefit the fins.

And just for the record, I still don't think I would do the deal, but it would intrigue we way more.

Either one of two things are going on here. And for the record i'm going to speculate that it's #1.

1. You are overestimating the talent and skill set of Jake Long when it comes to the various and differing requirements in the blocking schemes.

2. You are not aware of the differences in required skill set for the blocking schemes.

Until you see what the better fit is, there's nothing I'm gonna say that makes sense to you when discussing this issue.

First of all Jake Long in the right system will completely change your team. He will embarrass and DE or OLB in the power run game. This could change a team for the good for years. So no I would not trade him straight up for any WR in the game

To the specifics of your question. Yes I believe the better receiver is Larry Fitzgerald and would choose him over Mike Wallace if the two where options for me._________________

Fellow Posters: I beg that you not misunderstand my level of arrogance. My handle is an implication of Dolphin study not necessarily Dolphin expertise.

I read another article talking about how trading Jake Long for Mike Wallace makes a lot of sense for both teams.

While we love Jake Long and what he brings, Mike Wallace would add big play ability and TDs.

Jake Long is great for our Run blocking but we can't run the ball as much as we did and expect to win every week. That's what Sparano did.

Jake Long would help out the Steelers horrible OL. This allows us to not pay Jake Long a big contract. This will allow us to Use the money on a playmaker we need.

Mike Wallace would give us he speedster playmaker and allow the steelers to use that money on a needed position. The steelers are deep at WR right now.

Really the trade makes sense for both teams.

I want to agree with you now. But it feels like that ship has sailed. Who would play LT for us this season. This is the kind of trade that should be made in the offseason.

Hey Doc, would you rather have Wallace or Fitzgerald? The reason I ask is if Jake is a top 3 LT in the game, and Fitz is a top 3 WR in the game, wouldn't that be more comparable? I mean Fitz has elite talent, with poor qb play getting him the ball. I see that as more of a deal that would benefit the fins.

And just for the record, I still don't think I would do the deal, but it would intrigue we way more.

Either one of two things are going on here. And for the record i'm going to speculate that it's #1.

1. You are overestimating the talent and skill set of Jake Long when it comes to the various and differing requirements in the blocking schemes.

2. You are not aware of the differences in required skill set for the blocking schemes.

Until you see what the better fit is, there's nothing I'm gonna say that makes sense to you when discussing this issue.

First of all Jake Long in the right system will completely change your team. He will embarrass and DE or OLB in the power run game. This could change a team for the good for years. So no I would not trade him straight up for any WR in the game

To the specifics of your question. Yes I believe the better receiver is Larry Fitzgerald and would choose him over Mike Wallace if the two where options for me.

I think you and I are on the same page here.

Clutch i'll answer with my opinion here if you don't mind. I would trade Jake Long for Larry Fitzgerald without blinking an eye. Jake Long fits what they do very well. I tend to agree with Dolphinologist on this. Jake Long has looked average to above average in this system. We could trade a player to bring him back to elite status playing for a team that fits his strength.

I also agree in the fact that Jake Long could bring in a guy like Larry Fitzgerald and a pick or another player.

The cardinals IMO could be willing to trade Fitzgerald. If you look at what they have, it makes sense. They drafted a big physical WR and have a young up comer in Roberts. They also have an athletic TE and an explosive running back in time. They could trade Fitz to open up cap space and help build their team.

These trade scenarios that I am coming up with are just trades that help both teams out.

To sum it all up, i would rather trade for Larry Fitzgerald because he is just great. He may not be the fastest but he always seems to out run defenders and make plays when needed. I would love to have Larry Fitzgerald here. He would be so helpful for Tannehill._________________
UniversalAuthor

I read another article talking about how trading Jake Long for Mike Wallace makes a lot of sense for both teams.

While we love Jake Long and what he brings, Mike Wallace would add big play ability and TDs.

Jake Long is great for our Run blocking but we can't run the ball as much as we did and expect to win every week. That's what Sparano did.

Jake Long would help out the Steelers horrible OL. This allows us to not pay Jake Long a big contract. This will allow us to Use the money on a playmaker we need.

Mike Wallace would give us he speedster playmaker and allow the steelers to use that money on a needed position. The steelers are deep at WR right now.

Really the trade makes sense for both teams.

I want to agree with you now. But it feels like that ship has sailed. Who would play LT for us this season. This is the kind of trade that should be made in the offseason.

Hey Doc, would you rather have Wallace or Fitzgerald? The reason I ask is if Jake is a top 3 LT in the game, and Fitz is a top 3 WR in the game, wouldn't that be more comparable? I mean Fitz has elite talent, with poor qb play getting him the ball. I see that as more of a deal that would benefit the fins.

And just for the record, I still don't think I would do the deal, but it would intrigue we way more.

Either one of two things are going on here. And for the record i'm going to speculate that it's #1.

1. You are overestimating the talent and skill set of Jake Long when it comes to the various and differing requirements in the blocking schemes.

2. You are not aware of the differences in required skill set for the blocking schemes.

Until you see what the better fit is, there's nothing I'm gonna say that makes sense to you when discussing this issue.

First of all Jake Long in the right system will completely change your team. He will embarrass and DE or OLB in the power run game. This could change a team for the good for years. So no I would not trade him straight up for any WR in the game

To the specifics of your question. Yes I believe the better receiver is Larry Fitzgerald and would choose him over Mike Wallace if the two where options for me.

I think you and I are on the same page here.

Clutch i'll answer with my opinion here if you don't mind. I would trade Jake Long for Larry Fitzgerald without blinking an eye. Jake Long fits what they do very well. I tend to agree with Dolphinologist on this. Jake Long has looked average to above average in this system. We could trade a player to bring him back to elite status playing for a team that fits his strength.

I also agree in the fact that Jake Long could bring in a guy like Larry Fitzgerald and a pick or another player.

The cardinals IMO could be willing to trade Fitzgerald. If you look at what they have, it makes sense. They drafted a big physical WR and have a young up comer in Roberts. They also have an athletic TE and an explosive running back in time. They could trade Fitz to open up cap space and help build their team.

These trade scenarios that I am coming up with are just trades that help both teams out.

To sum it all up, i would rather trade for Larry Fitzgerald because he is just great. He may not be the fastest but he always seems to out run defenders and make plays when needed. I would love to have Larry Fitzgerald here. He would be so helpful for Tannehill.

- Never said I was an expert. Just go by what I see. Last Sunday, he got blamed because Miller went outside....pretty easy to see the rook picked up the wrong assignment.

Anyways, not against trading Long IF you have a player than can take over his position. We don't.

IF I am trading Long it better be for something better than Wallace, that's all I am saying._________________- "Who, I love Rich Camarillo." Quote from the Fish's play by play crew.

I think we can almost all agree that Jake Long is the single most respected Dolphin amongst those who don't follow the team. Everyone outside Miami seems to mention his name first before anyone else's. He's a well-known and well-respected player.

With 4 Pro Bowls in 4 years and the ability to play through injury demonstrated I have no doubt that if Jake Long were on the trade block Miami would have little problem getting a very sizeble something in return.

My problems with the premise of this thread are these:

A) Is Wallace is that good or is he just getting all the attention because he's the potentially-available, "big-name" WR?

B) Mike Wallace is fast and can be an over-the-top threat. He's probably the WR that Cam Cameron envisioned Ted Ginn Jr blossoming into. But does Mike Wallace have the ability to run routes and catch balls th way a possession receiver would? I have a strong suspicion that every WR we get for this offense will have dimensionality. They'll be fast, sure, but they'll also have the ability to run shorter routes and possibly go over the middle. Has Mike Wallace really proven he's all that? I'd personally rather go after the next Julio Jones personally. Could you guys imagine Sammy Watkins on this team?! Sorry, Clemson fantasy there. Point is, our highlight WR--whoever he winds up being--will be a more universal combination of hands, speed, sharness, focus, etc. Not a pure speed threat like Wallace.

C) Trading a LT--maybe the single most important position on an O-line--for a WR just seems like kind of a dumb thing to do.

I think we can almost all agree that Jake Long is the single most respected Dolphin amongst those who don't follow the team. Everyone outside Miami seems to mention his name first before anyone else's. He's a well-known and well-respected player.

With 4 Pro Bowls in 4 years and the ability to play through injury demonstrated I have no doubt that if Jake Long were on the trade block Miami would have little problem getting a very sizeble something in return.

My problems with the premise of this thread are these:

A) Is Wallace is that good or is he just getting all the attention because he's the potentially-available, "big-name" WR?

B) Mike Wallace is fast and can be an over-the-top threat. He's probably the WR that Cam Cameron envisioned Ted Ginn Jr blossoming into. But does Mike Wallace have the ability to run routes and catch balls th way a possession receiver would? I have a strong suspicion that every WR we get for this offense will have dimensionality. They'll be fast, sure, but they'll also have the ability to run shorter routes and possibly go over the middle. Has Mike Wallace really proven he's all that? I'd personally rather go after the next Julio Jones personally. Could you guys imagine Sammy Watkins on this team?! Sorry, Clemson fantasy there. Point is, our highlight WR--whoever he winds up being--will be a more universal combination of hands, speed, sharness, focus, etc. Not a pure speed threat like Wallace.

C) Trading a LT--maybe the single most important position on an O-line--for a WR just seems like kind of a dumb thing to do.

A) That is a very good point. You never want to make a move based need and desparation.

B) I guess you haven't watched Mike Wallace much. Steelers games are always televised in my area. When i watch Mike Wallace, i see a good route runner, an explosive player, and a guy with good hands. Again you do have a good point for his as well though.

C) Here is where you have to think outside of the box. It's not dumb to trade a LT at all. What do Jake Long, Joe Thomas, Jordan Gross, and Ryan Clady have in common? They are all top tier LTs and none of them have won a superbowl and none of them are on a consistently winning team. Look at what the Giants, Packers, and Patriots do. They have injuries and yet their OL keeps going. The OL is coached so well and the system allows players to step in as starters and keep playing. Right now we don't have anybody that can replace Long unless we move Martin to LT and start someone else at RT.

Give me a good system to build a solid unit up front. Frank Moore points out a lot that Wade Smith is doing a fantastic job in Houston. Wade Smith who sucked here in Miami.

The Giants don't have one OL that is elite at this point.

New England and Green Bay have had injuries to veterans and are able to coach and replace them with the young vets and not miss a beat. They seem to just be able to develop a system that allows the young OL to learn and develop.

I'm not saying Jake Long isn't important to us but i am saying he could help us get important players that can have a bigger impact._________________
UniversalAuthor

We all have thick skin in here I think so im just going to say it...Thats plain STUPID! I understand that this is a hypothetical question but even in that its just dumb in my opinion. You have a Rookie QB that already has few playmakers and you want to give him even less time to make decisions my trading one of His Best OL. That makes no sense at all, if we want to build a team from the ground up you fix whats broken not just tinker with things for the sake of doing so. We have 10 or 11 picks next year we want a stud WR that bad go get one that cost you nothing. IMO thats the BEST way to handle it ride it out whatever comes during the course of this season and save your picks. They're is going to be a really good group of WR coming out and I wouldn't be shocked to see someone like Robert Woods of SC there staring is in the face come next April because he doesn't have Elite Speed or Size and there are about 4 or 5 players that do.

I went back and read all the discussion about schemes and what not. SO my question is this can anyone tell me what scheme he played in while at Michigan? Thats right Zone Blocking so to say he can't do it is total BS if he couldn't he sure as hell wouldn't have been the Number one over all pick. He also played basketball in highschool something that take coordination. He is a much better athlete than some give him credit for. Just food for thought!!!

I think we can almost all agree that Jake Long is the single most respected Dolphin amongst those who don't follow the team. Everyone outside Miami seems to mention his name first before anyone else's. He's a well-known and well-respected player.

With 4 Pro Bowls in 4 years and the ability to play through injury demonstrated I have no doubt that if Jake Long were on the trade block Miami would have little problem getting a very sizeble something in return.

My problems with the premise of this thread are these:

A) Is Wallace is that good or is he just getting all the attention because he's the potentially-available, "big-name" WR?

B) Mike Wallace is fast and can be an over-the-top threat. He's probably the WR that Cam Cameron envisioned Ted Ginn Jr blossoming into. But does Mike Wallace have the ability to run routes and catch balls th way a possession receiver would? I have a strong suspicion that every WR we get for this offense will have dimensionality. They'll be fast, sure, but they'll also have the ability to run shorter routes and possibly go over the middle. Has Mike Wallace really proven he's all that? I'd personally rather go after the next Julio Jones personally. Could you guys imagine Sammy Watkins on this team?! Sorry, Clemson fantasy there. Point is, our highlight WR--whoever he winds up being--will be a more universal combination of hands, speed, sharness, focus, etc. Not a pure speed threat like Wallace.

C) Trading a LT--maybe the single most important position on an O-line--for a WR just seems like kind of a dumb thing to do.

A) That is a very good point. You never want to make a move based need and desparation.

B) I guess you haven't watched Mike Wallace much. Steelers games are always televised in my area. When i watch Mike Wallace, i see a good route runner, an explosive player, and a guy with good hands. Again you do have a good point for his as well though.

C) Here is where you have to think outside of the box. It's not dumb to trade a LT at all. What do Jake Long, Joe Thomas, Jordan Gross, and Ryan Clady have in common? They are all top tier LTs and none of them have won a superbowl and none of them are on a consistently winning team. Look at what the Giants, Packers, and Patriots do. They have injuries and yet their OL keeps going. The OL is coached so well and the system allows players to step in as starters and keep playing. Right now we don't have anybody that can replace Long unless we move Martin to LT and start someone else at RT.

Give me a good system to build a solid unit up front. Frank Moore points out a lot that Wade Smith is doing a fantastic job in Houston. Wade Smith who sucked here in Miami.

The Giants don't have one OL that is elite at this point.

New England and Green Bay have had injuries to veterans and are able to coach and replace them with the young vets and not miss a beat. They seem to just be able to develop a system that allows the young OL to learn and develop.

I'm not saying Jake Long isn't important to us but i am saying he could help us get important players that can have a bigger impact.

How many elite LTs are there in a league of 32 teams--maybe 5 to 10 guys? Jake Long, in the right system, is DEFINITELY one of those top-5, top-10 names and he's therefore much more valuable to a team running that system than Mike Wallace would be to us.

Now, conversely how far down the list of WRs do you have to go before you get to Mike Wallace? It's a lot farther than 5 or 10 names. And how many more really, really good guys come shortly after Wallace? That was my point. The trade just doesn't seem even at all in terms of the rarity of LTs and WRs.

Right now, the league is producing a ton of great WRs. Offenses and offensive-minded coaches are making guys like Andre Johnson and Calvin Johnson less and less important. If you have one, that's great, but if you don't, the roof isn't going to fall in on your party. There's a lot you can still do and in some cases it's more desirable to spread the talent throughout 3 or 4 really dependable guys than to just have 1 guys who have to shine in the 4th qtr for you to win games. I think this is schematically why we got rid of Brandon Marshall. I think it was a football-first decision and not something that necessary had everything to do with his off-the-field issues.

I see guys like DeSean Jackson and Mike Wallace as situationally-successful players. Do I like them? Yes. Do I like their skill-sets? Yes. They're very good but they don't transcend systems the way the Calvin Johnson's do. If you can afford to sign a Jackson or Wallace in free agency without giving anything up, great, but don't sell the farm to get one because they're going to be quite prevalent in the future I think and it's no guarantee that because they played well in another system with another HC and another QB that they'll produce the same way, or as reliably, for you. We're in a position where we want to draft those difference-makers. We want them to grow and blossom in this offense so that they're best years come after having learned and earned the position.

As far as those other LTs on bad teams, that's kind of a silly argument. There are loads and loads of great WRs, RBs and QBs who don't have Super Bowl rings or experience and are held back by the team their on. That's an easily defeated basis for an argument. Bad teams inevitably always have one or two top-end players that worked out thanks to a high draft pick.

As far as other great O-lines are concerned. What do we know creates a good O-line? Experience. In particular, experience together. While the Giants are soon to be in trouble thanks to the age of many of the O-linemen, they at least have experience working in their favor. The group works well together. This is another reason why we must be very careful in trying to get rid of Jake Long.

the thing that gets me.. is.. if we get rid of Long.. and Tanny gets killed.. or "happy feet" then we are right back where we were .... never going forward... Some time addition by subtraction.. don't work...
also.. a top 3 LT for a wr... Wallace... seems to me a few seasons ago Nate Washington was the guy in Pitt... he leaves.. and Wallace is the stud now.. so is it the receiver or the system ?

the thing that gets me.. is.. if we get rid of Long.. and Tanny gets killed.. or "happy feet" then we are right back where we were .... never going forward... Some time addition by subtraction.. don't work...
also.. a top 3 LT for a wr... Wallace... seems to me a few seasons ago Nate Washington was the guy in Pitt... he leaves.. and Wallace is the stud now.. so is it the receiver or the system ?

Consider too that Antonio Brown seems to be the next 'big name' coming from that offense.

The culture in this forum is so entertaining to observe. When I first proposed the idea, almost each one of you tried to rip me a new one. Now something is happening. It's beginning to look like a good idea for the right price. You see (as predicted) this blocking scheme clashes with his style. I'm even of the belief that it might cause him an injury if it hasn't already.

Any left tackle that you trust to start on your team should be on the team through camp. The time to sack up and trade this dude has come and gone. Now he's just another ringless Dolphin future HOFer. You think he's gonna resign to this team running this system, when he can go back to looking like the 2010 Jake Long on a power run team ?

No i would NOT trade him for Wallace. This is a dead issue. The title of the thread is a bad deal. Would i trade Jake Long for a 1st and a RT moving Martin to LT, Hell YES ... Would I trade him for a WR in an offense where stud WRs are not needed ? HELL NO.

Your asking the wrong question._________________

Fellow Posters: I beg that you not misunderstand my level of arrogance. My handle is an implication of Dolphin study not necessarily Dolphin expertise.

The culture in this forum is so entertaining to observe. When I first proposed the idea, almost each one of you tried to rip me a new one. Now something is happening. It's beginning to look like a good idea for the right price. You see (as predicted) this blocking scheme clashes with his style. I'm even of the belief that it might cause him an injury if it hasn't already.

Any left tackle that you trust to start on your team should be on the team through camp. The time to sack up and trade this dude has come and gone. Now he's just another ringless Dolphin future HOFer. You think he's gonna resign to this team running this system, when he can go back to looking like the 2010 Jake Long on a power run team ?

No i would NOT trade him for Wallace. This is a dead issue. The title of the thread is a bad deal. Would i trade Jake Long for a 1st and a RT moving Martin to LT, Hell YES ... Would I trade him for a WR in an offense where stud WRs are not needed ? HELL NO.

Your asking the wrong question.

Agreed. If we got a serviceable OT plus a 1st rounder it'd be a no brainer. That said, now that I think about it, who would give up "serviceable" plus a first for Long is the question.

The culture in this forum is so entertaining to observe. When I first proposed the idea, almost each one of you tried to rip me a new one. Now something is happening. It's beginning to look like a good idea for the right price. You see (as predicted) this blocking scheme clashes with his style. I'm even of the belief that it might cause him an injury if it hasn't already.

Any left tackle that you trust to start on your team should be on the team through camp. The time to sack up and trade this dude has come and gone. Now he's just another ringless Dolphin future HOFer. You think he's gonna resign to this team running this system, when he can go back to looking like the 2010 Jake Long on a power run team ?

No i would NOT trade him for Wallace. This is a dead issue. The title of the thread is a bad deal. Would i trade Jake Long for a 1st and a RT moving Martin to LT, Hell YES ... Would I trade him for a WR in an offense where stud WRs are not needed ? HELL NO.

Your asking the wrong question.

Agreed. If we got a serviceable OT plus a 1st rounder it'd be a no brainer. That said, now that I think about it, who would give up "serviceable" plus a first for Long is the question.

Too late ... I brought it up when i did for a reason. You don't disrupt your OLine in front of your rookie 2 or more games into the season unless your are blown away. Who's gonna blow you away for a soon to be FA.
I actually got the idea from something Ovaw8 said. I'm not saying he said to trade Jake Long, but he did describe the difference between blocking schemes and that's when I started questioning his presence on the team._________________

Fellow Posters: I beg that you not misunderstand my level of arrogance. My handle is an implication of Dolphin study not necessarily Dolphin expertise.